this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
103 points (94.8% liked)

Fuck Cars

9773 readers
108 users here now

This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.

This community exists for the following reasons:

You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.

Rules

  1. Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.

  2. No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.

  3. Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.

  4. No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.

  5. No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.

  6. No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.

  7. No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.

Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cort 13 points 6 months ago (2 children)

What we need is normal roads with barriers blocking off cars from entering.

Bikes are cars.

So pedestrians only on these roads? Like a sidewalk?

Or are you saying bikes should be treated JUST like cars, except better, with routes that exclude cars?

It sounds like what you want is separated, protected, raised bicycle lanes.

And I'm no fan of rising on the sidewalks, but cycling is literally one of the uses for a mixed use trail.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

delirious_owl is being pretty inflammatory but they make a good point.

All too often a supposed "bike lane" is just built to a worse standard than parallel car lanes. It will have a worse road surface, sharp bends, confusing and long routing, less priority at intersections and traffic lights. Car lanes are the default and bike lanes are squeezed in as an afterthought.

This needs to change, bike lanes should be built to the same or higher standard as roads(although typically bike lanes can be much narrower). Multi lane bike motorways need to be buldozed through neighborhoods. An easy way to do this is just take part or all of an existing road and make it bike only.

[–] FireRetardant 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Please no more bulldozing neighbourhoods. Bike lanes would be far easier to accomodate in a neighbourhood than a 6+ lane freeway was.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

What I'm saying is that in the eyes of the law, bicycles are the same as cars. Bikes belong on roads that are built for vehicular traffic.

I don't want a different type of narrow trail that's raised and windy with roots and trash. I want to use roads that are built to spec for cars. Fortunately, we already have plenty of them. The only problem is that cars are using them too.

If you want to make the road safer for bicycles, then ban vehicles with motors from half the roads. Like NYC and Berkeley have done.

If you don't want to ban cars, then paint a big green stripe down the middle of the furthest right lane with a picture of a bicycle to make it clear to cars that that is the lane for bicycles and cars should pass bicycles in the passing lane. Like what Oakland has done.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Bikes belong on roads that are built for vehicular traffic.

Bikes belong on roads that are built for bikes.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

Roads built for cars are built for bikes.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

https://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com

Roads existed before cars & it was cycling organisations that campaigned to have them tarmacked & sealed for everyone's benefit

Pavements were not built for vehicles yet in the UK over 350 people are killed or seriously injured by vehicles mounting it.

[–] FireRetardant 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Roads for cars are built almost exclussively for just cars. Its half the reason this community even exists. Roads speced for bikes wouldn't need to tolerate nearly as much weight nor would they need to be as wide as car lanes. Many intersections would also be served with yields rather than traffic lights as most bike traffic can negotiate intersections easily.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That type of logic is why I prefer roads to bike trails.

Motorcycles need the full width of a road, so do bicycles. When engineers lower the specs for bicycles, they are thinking of a child riding 5 kph on a Sunday rec ride, but we need roads designed for cargo bikes hauling a weeks worth of groceries or rebar and cement down hill at 40 kph.

When you make the lanes smaller or don't clean the land of debris or permit sharper turns, you endanger the lives of cyclists. That's not OK. Cyclists are vehicles and our roads should meet the same specs as all roads.

[–] FireRetardant 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Technically speaking. Motorcycle do not need the full width. It is not uncommon to see them side by side in a single lane.

If your bike max speed is 40kph, thats the slower side of car speeds so the roads could still be designed far differently for bikes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Legally and saftey wise, motorcycles absolutely need the full width of the lane.

Some motorcyclists ride dangerously. Who knew?

But the motorcyclists uses all 3 thirds of the lane for different purposes. Another vehicle should never enter their lane, for their safety. Same with bicyclists.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Please ride your bike on I-95, I beg of you

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 months ago

I have. And on the Autobahn in Germany.

They need to put a green stripe in the right most lanes and say that cars are not allowed in that lane, except for exiting. With extreme speed restrictions.